quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak to up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: and then ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak to up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i now ask that i be recognized to speak for as much as time as i may consume. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized for that purpose. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. we now are in about the six months of implementation of the affordable care act and we have over 11 million people who have received health care, who previously had not been able to receive it either through the private exchanges which have signed up four million people all across the country or through the expansion of medicaid that have reached millions more or through all of

the young people that have been able to stay on their plans until they are 26 years old. taxpayers are saving money. in fact, c.b.o. has redone their estimates for the ten-year period after the passage of the affordable care act to suggest that we are now going to save $1.2 trillion on federal health care spending in large part because of the reforms in the affordable care act. and across this country millions of americans who had been kept out of the ranks of the insured because of a preexisting condition now have access to health care and tens of millions of seniors are paying less for their health care because they get checkups for free and they are able to access prescription drugs when they get in the doughnut hole for 50% or less of the original cost. the affordable care act is changing lives. when you reorder one-sixth of the american economy there are going to be bumps along the road. nobody should come down to this floor, even those of us who are the most vocal proponents of the

law, and suggest that there aren't going to be some people who are not going to have a perfect experience. and of course there is no excuse for the way in which the web site operated for the first several months. but it's time for proponents of this law to tell the real story, and the real story is that the affordable care act is working. it's working for millions of americans who now have access to health care. it's working for taxpayers that are spending less than ever before. as you look at annual rates of growth in federal health care spending. and today and this week, me and my colleagues are focusing on the benefits for one specific group of patients, one specific set of families all across this country. those are patients and families dealing with cancer diagnoses. and so i want to start myself -- i'll be joined later on by senator stabenow and some of my other colleagues. i want to talk first about a

family, a family actually in indiana. i'll talk about some families in connecticut as well. the treenans have a story that is frankly not unique. they had insurance and they thought they had really good insurance. they didn't pay too much attention to the lifetime cap that was in their insurance policy of $1 million because they just figured as a relatively healthy family there was no way they were ever going to spend $1 million on health care over the course of their time on that insurance plan. but as millions of families across this country know, cancer can interrupt your plans, and that's what happened to the treenans. their doctors diagnosed their teenage son michael in 2007 with an aggressive form of leukemia, and the treatment called for ten doses of chemotherapy that cost

$10,000 per dose. a 56-day stay in an intensive care unit alone cost about $400,000. michael and his family reached that $1 million lifetime maximum in less than a year, and it was left to this brave family to go out and raise money in solicitations in their neighborhood, in their community and all across the country which miraculously allowed them to bring in $865,000 in six days to keep their son's treatment going. now, needless to say, that avenue is not available to every family due to their ingenuity and their passion, the treenans were able to raise almost $1 million from private donors in order to keep their son's treatment going. the story, though, doesn't end well for the treenans. though money came in from all

over the united states and as far away as places like germany, michael's cancer eventually stopped responding to chemotherapy and he died may 25, before he could receive the transplant that he would hope would save his life. the reality is, is that insurance companies have been getting away with this practice for years. lifetime or annual limits that for 105 million americans were preventing them from receiving care when they really got sick. that's when insurance really is supposed to be. for those of us that buy insurance, we get it in the hopes that should we get very sick that, that insurance plan will be there to help us, but with annual and lifetime limits when people got really sick especially with cancer diagnoses, that help wasn't there. for tom bakacio, a retired police officer in newington,

he's still tkaelg with the consequences of lifetime caps. his wife passed away an after eight year struggle with adrenal cancer and after her death the husband that she left behind was saddled with a $1.5 million bill because the pachiaos over that eight year period of fighting cancer exceeded their five-year cap. that changed tom's life in a myriad of ways. he lost his wife and there is no way to describe the pain that comes with that especially after this brave courageous battle of almost a decade but now his life is up ended by the fact he has a $1.5 million bill he's got to pay and doesn't have the resources to do it. first and foremost for cancer patients across this country, 105 million americans no longer face lifetime limits on health benefits. for cancer patients, not only does that deliver financial security but it delivers mental

and psychological security as well to know that in the midst of dealing with this diagnosis and all of the tphaeupb comes with con -- all the pain that comes with confronting this disease head on that they don't also have to worry about skim skimping on treatments, cutting back on hospital stays that might harm the recovery of the patient simply because they are trying not to get above that annual or lifetime limit. the benefits to cancer patients extend beyond just that protection on lifetime and annual limits. in addition, cancer patients are going to be able to keep their health care because of the ban on discrimination against families, individuals with preexisting conditions. i spoke about the burger family many times on this floor. they are a family that explains why they need this protection. they had a son who was diagnosed

with cancer during the two-week period in which the husband, through which the family had insurance, didn't have a job. he switched jobs, and during that two-week period in which he was waiting to get insurance through his new job their son got diagnosed with cancer. the new insurance policy decided it was a preexisting condition. the burgers had to pay every dime of that treatment and they lost everything. they lost their savings. they lost their home, their lives were transformed because of the misfortune of having a cancer diagnosis at the wrong time. no no family anywhere in the country dealing with a cancer diagnose will have to go through what the burgers went through because forever here after, the law of this land says that if you have a preexisting condition, you cannot be discriminated against. there are all sorts of other benefits that matter here, whether it be the fact that you don't have to pay for preventative health care any longer so you can go get a checkup without cost or that trials are covered now, clinic trials are covered, which many

cancer patients enjoy the benefit of. life changed for cancer patients and families dealing with cancer when the affordable care act passed. we had a press conference, senator stabenow and myself and others earlier this week in which we heard the story of david weiss who is a senior at georgetown university, and he was diagnosed days before his 19th birthday with thyroid and lymphatic cancer. david talks about the difference that the affordable care act makes for him, not in financial terms but in terms about how he thinks about his future. david now can go out and get a job, search for and pursue a career based on what he wants to do with his life rather than based on what job will provide him with adequate benefits to treat his cancer should it

recur. i have a constituent, aaron berrell who talks about it the same way. he was 14 when he was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. he went through treatment for over three years, and his family now knows that with the affordable care act, because he's only covered on his mom's policy until he is 26, that with the affordable care act after he ages out of his mom's plan, that he will be able to pursue his dreams, no matter what kind of insurance plan his prospective employer has. what we have learned over the years is that there is a connection between the mind and the body, and if you are stressed out about things like how you're going to pay for treatment for your disease, it does have an effect on your body's ability to fight that disease. and unfortunately for millions of families who are dealing with

cancer, their treatment has been restrained, their body's recovery has been curtailed because they are obsessively and appropriately always worried about what will happen if their insurance runs out. the a.c.a. says never again, no family will have to have that worry because coverage will be guaranteed and the discriminatory policies of annual and lifetime limits disappear. mr. president, i will just end with the notion that it's important to remember, every time that our republican friends come down to the floor and talk about how awful they believe the affordable care act is, that their proposal is to return cancer patients and families dealing with cancer back to the reality in which they had lifetime limits that ended their coverage for this family that i talked about from indiana after

only several months and they want to go back to the day in which families like the burgers lose everything, their savings, their home because of a mistimed cancer diagnosis. this week, the house of representatives voted for the 50th time to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. i was a member of that body for six years, and i proudly participated in about 40 of those votes, and despite the fact that i heard lots of my republican friends come down to the floor and say we're voting to repeal and replace, they never once voted to replace the affordable care act because their agenda is not to replace it. their agenda is simply to repeal it and go back to the days in which cancer patients were treated with this kind of carelessness by our nation's health care system. and so, mr. president, our colleagues on the democratic side who voted for the affordable care act, we understand that there are places that it can be better. we understand that there is a

process of perfecting it, but we understand because of families like the berrells, because of families like the weisses and the treinans and burgers, they know that the a.c.a. is working and they know they never want to go back to the day in which their lives were put in jeopardy by a health care system that didn't work for them. thank you for the time, and i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i first want to thank my friend and colleague from connecticut for his passion and his wonderful advocacy for people who just want to know that they have health care for themselves and their families. that's a pretty basic thing. i want to thank you, senator

murphy, for your vigilance in speaking out and being here and talking about really what is at stake. you know, i was thinking about there is an ad. you have heard the ad before on tv that says something like new car, $30,000. new house, $150,000. peace of mind, priceless. peace of mind, priceless. what we're talking about here in terms of access to affordable health care, getting what you're paying for, knowing you can't get dropped just before you -- just because you get sick, knowing that your child with juvenile diabetes can get care even though that would be viewed as a preexisting condition, that's peace of mind. i can't imagine how scary it must be to sit in a doctor's

office and have the doctor come in and say you have cancer, you have leukemia, you have breast cancer. that's happening to people every single day, and there are many, many things going through their minds at that time. at some point they will turn to the doctor and want to talk about what kind of treatment do i need and is it going to be covered and how do i get it, what's going to happen? one in every eight women in america will develop invasive breast cancer during their lives. it's not a statistic. these are real women, like my sister-in-law, like many, many other people that i know. they are our daughters and our sisters and our mothers. we have men as well who are being given diagnoses of breast

cancer, our friends, and they now have the peace of mind of knowing that they are going to be able to get the care that they need at an affordable price, that they can't be dropped, that there is not a cap on how long they are going to be able to get treatment, and that is priceless. i'd like to share a story, a true story about a cancer survivor whose life has been changed thanks to the affordable care act. her name's chris, chris g. she found a lump in her breast. every woman can imagine the thoughts that must have gone through chris' mind. the fear that must have been unimaginable. it was even worse for chris because her husband has lost his job and they didn't have insurance. the worst of all possible situations. and because she didn't have insurance, she couldn't see a doctor to get the tests that she

needed. chris didn't ignore her lump. you can't ignore something like that. it's on your mind every single minute of every single day, but at that moment, she didn't feel she could do anything about it. because without insurance, if chris went to a doctor, her breast cancer, of course, would count as a preexisting condition, and then she would never be able to get insurance. but now, thanks to the affordable care act, chris and millions of women like her can get the affordable insurance that they need through the marketplaces where insurance companies now have to compete for her business, give their best price for her business, and these are good policies that cover treatments that women need to beat cancer and survive. but before the affordable care act, cancer would haunt these

women for the rest of their lives. as insurance companies labeled their survival a preexisting condition. no more. thanks to the a.c.a., millions of cancer survivors like chris have peace of mind. peace of mind, priceless. thanks to the affordable care act, millions of women have access to mammograms, other preventative services. thanks to the affordable care act, millions of women like chris will never have to worry about annual or lifetime limits on their coverage, not being told okay, cancer, you have got eight visits, that's it. hope it works. that's it. no more. in fact, the a.c.a. flipped that around. it says that cancer patients like chris will never be asked to spend more than a set amount of money in total on their

treatment, and once they hit that number, that out-of-pocket number, the insurance company has to pick up the rest of the costs of the treatments. for women fighting cancer, this law is a lifesaver, a lifesaver. there are 7,000 women in michigan alone who will be newly diagnosed with breast cancer this year. 7,000 women in my great state of michigan. and that's why it is so important for women to get covered, to sign up before march 31 so they can have the health care that they need this year. this is literally a life-saving day of march 31. once you're covered, you get no cost-preventative services, so you can go in, you can get the checkup, you can get the mammogram, you can get other

cancer screenings, you won't have out-of-pocket costs. you get again the peace of mind of knowing that you're not going to go broke because of health care, even if you get diagnosed with cancer, it's not do i get the treatments i need for my breast cancer or do i have a home for my family? do i go bankrupt or do i try to survive through treatments? those are not the choices that are available to women anymore. to families anymore. and you get access to your doctor instead of using the emergency room. one of the fallacies, of course, of health reform, this idea of somehow we ignore it when people get sick and somehow we don't pay for it, and yet we all know that people who don't have insurance use emergency rooms.

interesting to note that i think there is a proposal -- is it i think north carolina where the governor has said -- i believe it's north carolina, if i'm not wrong, where the governor has said the way to fix the problem with emergency rooms is to say you don't have to treat people. well, that's one way to do it. that's one way to cut costs. say we're not going to treat people that are sick, that are in a car accident or having an emergency heart attack. the other way is through the affordable care act where we say that instead of people using emergency rooms without insurance and then shifting all the costs on to everybody with insurance, which is what happens now, we pay for it, we all pay for it. instead of that happening, we'll set up a way for people to take personal responsibility for their health care and create a way to make it as affordable and competitive as possible, and

then people will be able to go to the doctor, have their doctor instead of the emergency room and be able to get the treatment that they need on an ongoing basis. as women like chris can attest, cancer sneaks up on you. you can't predict it. you can't avoid it. this is not one of those things where you can say, you know, just buck it up and don't get cancer. what's wrong with you? you know, we don't want those costs. just don't get sick. well, we all know how ridiculous that is and that in some ways that's sort of what we keep hearing in some fashion. the reality is that you can't predict it, you can't avoid it, the only thing you can do is survive it. survive it.

which millions of women are now doing who have access to the treatments that they need, the health care they need. that's why this new health reform law is so important. it's really two things. it's health insurance reform, making sure that those of us who have insurance are getting what we're paying for. as we've said before, can't get dropped, don't put artificial limits on the number of treatments. so it's insurance reform, so you're getting what you're paying for. what you thought you were paying for. and it's also creating a way for more affordable insurance by creating a marketplace where insurance companies then have to bid for your business and provide you the best bid possible so we've got

competition to bring the cost down. i know for chris, i know for women in my own family, i know for people across michigan, the peace of mind that comes with you that is, in fact, priceless. the debate on the other side is about taking that all away. not making it better, not fixing it. medicare over the years has been improved, medicaid has been improved, social security has been improved. everything that is worth doing gets started and then has to be worked on and get improved. we're committed to doing that. but there are 50 votes that have now happened in the house to take it all away. and go back to saying good luck. if you're a woman, good luck. and, by the way, being a woman is probably going to be viewed

as a preexisting condition trying to find insurance. good luck, good luck. trying to get what you need from the health insurance companies. peace of mind, mr. president. worth fighting for. and that's what the affordable care act is all about. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to discuss promises made and promises broken.

of hypocrisy and politics, of the difference between the photo op speeches, press lees and real action. let me start at the beginning for those who are joust joining us in this decade and a half battle. the panama canal is about halfway through a $5.25 billion expansion wilson bridge accommodate the larger post-panamex vesms too large to transit the current panama canal. these ships are the length of aircraft carriers, from the waterline they are 190 feet tall or nearly twice the height of the lincoln memorial. the ships can carry as many as 12,000 containers or translated into tvs, a million flat-screened tvs. thus the united states must be prepared to accept these larger vessels by 2015 when the panama

expansion is complete. the port of savannah in savannah, georgia, is the second busiest u.s. container exporter, handling 13.2 millions of tons in exports in 2012 alone. it's the busiest port on the east coast. in order to accommodate the new larger ships at the port of savannah, the savannah river must be deepened from its current depth of 42 feet to 27 feet. georgia has been working on the harbor expansion project for well in excess of a dozen years. environmental studies have been completed, permits have been issued, state funding has been secured for 40% of the project. it has the support of every member of the georgia congressional delegation, and every single leader in our state. republican as well as democrat.

this is a unifying, bipartisan project for us, one that will support hundreds of thousands of jobs each year while generating billions of dollars in revenue for the entire southeastern united states. until recently, we had the obama administration's support as well. after all, this is exactly the type of project the president has been touting as the secret to our economic recovery. he even included the savannah harbor expansion project as one of the four port projects in his 2012 "we can't wait" initiative. vice president biden visited the port of sphan have a along with senator isakson and myself and transportation secretary anthony fox last year and in comments while at the port of savannah to the public that was gathered he stated "we're going to get this

done come hell or high water." as acting u.s. deputy commerce secretary reca -- rebecca blank visited it in 2012 calling ship a national bipartisan priority for this administration. former secretary of transportation ray lahood visited the support in 2011 promising to find funding for the port expansion. in fact, in every conversation i have had with bear yus administration officials since this project started in 1997, i've been assured that we would find a way to get this project done. so you can see how confused i was to learn this week that the administration is now stonewalling us on this project by not including the project in his 2015 budget. it is baffling to see this

administration choose to ignore a congressional statute passed just six weeks ago that cleared all remaining obstructions to moving forward with this project. the consolidated appropriations act of 2014 gave clear direction to the administration to begin construction on the ship project and to request the necessary funding. the administration's position as evidenced by the office of management and budget is that they will ignore the clear guidance from congress and will instead request more funding for unnecessary additional studies this year. apparently the administration would rather pay lip service to georgians than deliver on their promises. the state of georgia has done its part, and i commend governor deal and the georgia legislature who have committed $265 million to start construction.

we just need the federal government to get out of our way so georgia can begin construction on this very vital project. mr. president, the administration can repair some of the damage that's been done by finalizing the agreement between the u.s. army corps of engineers and the georgia ports authority so that they can begin construction with state money that under the leadership of governor deal is now going to be available. without any federal funding at this point in time, the state's willing to move forward. so, mr. president, i urge the administration to move ahead with the securing of that agreement between the army corps of engineers and the ports authority, and let's begin construction. and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: madam president, i seek recognize mission to speak for ten minutes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the senate call be idiscontinued. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank the senate president. madam president, we are now engaged in a debate over the last couple of weeks over whether or not we should begin

to expand a massive exploitation of american natural gas, our own natural gas, to put it out onto the world market as a way of helping ukraine deal with russia. this whole notion is constantly being invoked like an incantation, a talusman, that somehow this is some kind of a magic bullet that will help to solve the problems in the ukraine. but in fact it really is nothing more than just another aggregation excyclospeedically -- encyclopedically of discredited notions, nostrums, that have no relationship to the reality of the global energy marketplace.

markaz e taibmr. markey: these y arguments being made, false premises that do not in fact have any likelihood of having any substantial impact on the totality of the ukrainian situation. let me just give you a few facts as a way of dealing with where we are right now. we have approved -- the united states has already approved five export terminals that could send 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas abroad. now, how much natural gas is that? well, let me just tell you. it is more than twice what the ukraine uses in a year. the united states has already committed to doing that. more than a quarter of all of the gas in europe imports in a year would be ascribable to the

amount of natural gas the united states has already approved. it would be what the united states uses yearly. the department of energy found that exporting 4.4 trillion cubic feet, a level we will reach within the next approved export terminal, quo raise the price -- could raise the prices of domestic natural gas up to 54%. that could mean that american consumers would pay $2.50 more per thousand cubic feet. that translates into, listen to this number, ladies and gentlemen: $62 billion energy tax every year on american consumers and businesses. what do i mean by "energy tax"? but i meaning but for that

exploitation, consumer bills would be $62 billion lower per year over the next ten years. can you imagine a debate out here in the united states senate over increasing $62 billion worth of taxes on americans in one year? we would come to a standstill if we had that kind of debate. but because it's part of energy policy, people just assume that it's something that's outside of the per view of what should be -- purview of what should be a great national debate, which we are having. let me just tell you right now, low-cost domestic natural gas has allowed the united states to add, let me say this, 530,000 manufacturing jobs since 2010, according to dow chemical. if low prices continue, we could add 5 million more jobs in the manufacturing sector by 2020.

who says this? america's energy advantage. who is ea in that organization? dow, alcoa, new corps, other american corporations. what do they relate the manufacturing revival in our country to? low-price energy that gives them a reason to return the manufacturing jobs from overseas. except for the cost of labor, what's the single-largest component in a manufacturing job? the cost of energy. the lower it is, the more likely the manufacturing company will have the jobs here in america. if you increase the price by 54% or more, which is what many people here are now proposing, you reduce the sni the for a sna manufacturer. every dollar invested in

domestic manufacturing creates $8 in finished products. manufacturing is at the heart of who we are as a country. this is something that right now is a discussion we should have in this country. the relationship between low-cost energy and the new manufacturing jobs that we want to see. so we can generate that exik value here in -- economic value here in america. but if we send our natural gas overseas, that same kind of manufacturing future can be constructed in china. let's have that debate here. last month u.s. chemical industry topped $100 billion in new investment as a result of low-cost u.s. natural gas. according to the american chemistry council, those 148 new factories expanded projects could generate $81 billion per year in new chemical industry output and 637 new jobs in

manufacturing here in the united states by the year 2023. now, let's -- let's go to some of the, in my opinion, some of the complete canards that are thrown out about where this natural gas will go if it's put out into the free market. well, first of all, let's just say this: we're not russia. we're not venezuela. we are not communist -- we're not a communist country here where the government controls where energy goes. no, we're a capitalist country. we're proud of it. the decision as to where natural gas is going to go is going to be made by the c.e.o.'s of oil and gas companies in our country. and they're going to send it to where they can get the highest dollar. and let me just say this right now. the highest dollar is in china. the highest dollar is in south america.

the highest dollar is not in ukraine. so anyone that thinks that just by setting up these export terminals and sending our natural gas, that could be helping our manufacturing sect sector, over seas is going to help the ukraine geopolitical situation doesn't understand the geoeconomics of it, the geology of it, or the geopolitical implications of it. they have not thought through the totality of what happens when we take our precious resource and we start spreading it around the world. so some are just going to argue it helps ukraine. well, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to help china more than it helps ukraine. it's going to help south america more than it helps ukraine. and it's, for sure, going to help the c.e.o.'s of big oil and gas companies. that's what this debate is really going to be all about because we don't captain those

ships. exxonmobil has a tiller for those ships, and those ships are going to steer towards where the highest price is on the world marketplace. when those l.n.g. tankers set sail for asia or south america, we should know what else we're sending abroad? american jobs will be on those ships. they'll be sailing to other countries. fighting climate change is on those ships because we'll burn more coal here in the united states rather than natural gas, which has half of the pollutants of coal. we'll be increasing the greenhouse gases that the united states of america is sending up into the atmosphere. when we are sending that natural gas overseas, we'll be increasing the cost of a conversion of our large bus

fleet and our large truck fleet over to natural gas as the fuel which makes it possible to drive them around our country. here are the statistics. it's quite simple. if we just move one-third of our fleet off of oil and onto natural gas as a way of feel fueling large buses and larges trucks, then we back out one million barrels of oil, one million barrels of oil per day. that's a signal we should be sending to the middle east. that's a signal that we are serious, that we're tired of exporting young men and women overseas and getting nothing in return. so let me just summarize by saying this: one, it is a $62 billion consumer tax. two, it cellulos slows our convn from oil over to -- from coal over to oil in our utility industry. slows the conversion of vehicles

over to natural gas. slows our manufacturing revolution, slows our economic recovery so that our real strength is in our strong economy fueled by this low-cost oil and natural gas in our country. we need a huge national debate in our country about the impact on our economy before we start putting it out on the high seas believing erroneously that it's going to have some huge impact on the ucraifnlt i yield back the balance of my time. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. madam president, russia's invasion of ukraine is one of the most serious breaches of the osce principles since the signing of the 1975 helsinki final act. these principles are the foundation of the organization

for security and cooperation in europe. russia, as a participating state, agreed to uphold these principles, including territorial integrity of states, involumability of frontiers and reframing -- refraining from the threat of use of force, peaceful settlements of disputes and others. with this invasion, which is based, as secretary kerry as stated, on a trumped up set of pretenses, russia has shown its utter contempt for those core principles, indeed, for the entire osce process. and not only the osce, but the 1994 budapest memorandum signed by the united states and united kingdom, russia and ukraine that provides security assurances for the ukraine, the 1997 ukraine-russia bilateral treaty, and the u.n. charter and other international agreements. russia's military invasion of

ukraine is also a gross violation of the vienna document and mechanisms which govern military relations in arms control. so let's examine vladimir putin's justification for this unprovoked invasion. he claims there is a need to protect russian interests and the rights of russian-speaking minorities. they characterize it as a human rights protection mission. that is clearly not. russia officials fail to show any real evidence that the rights of ethnic russians in crimea where they actually constitute a majority and have the most clout politically and ukraine at large have been violated. in fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the protests in some ukrainian cities is being stoked up by the russians. putin and other officials make all sorts of accusations

including the masked militia roaming the streets of kiev although the ukrainian capital and most of the ukraine has been calm the past few weeks. mr. putin claims there is a rampage of reactionary forces, nationalists, antisemitic forces going on in certain parts of ukraine. yet, kiev's chief rabbi and vice president of the world jewish congress on monday accused russia of staging antisemitic provocations in crimea. mr. putin accuses ukraine's, the new legitimate transition government not yet two weeks old a threat, a threatening ethnic russians yet there are credible reports to the contrary. although there has been unrest in some cities, there has been no serious movement in the mostly russian-speaking eastern and southern regions to join with russia. the clear majority of ukrainians want to see their country remain

unified and do not welcome russian intervention. all ukrainian religious groups have come out against the russian intervention and stand in support of ukraine's territorial integrity and involuability groups. i suppose the real threat posed by the new government is it wants to move ukraine in the direction of political and economic reforms and in the direction of democracy, respect of human rights, the rule of law, away from the unbridled corruption of the previous regime and the kind of autocratic rule found in today's russia. as for protecting russia's interest in crimea, the russians have not produced one iota of evidence that the russian black sea fleet based in the crimea

city is under any kind of threat. russian authorities need to send their troops back to the barracks and stand engaged through diplomacy, not the threat or use of force. the russian actions pose a threat beyond ukraine and threaten to destabilize neighboring states. i pointed out at a hearing we had this week in the subcommittee on senate foreign relations committee and the hearing of the helsinki commission that if russia can use force to try to change territories, what message does that send to the south china seas? what message does that certain to the western balkans? just as poland has invoked article 4 in nato consultations, the balkan states and others in the region are wary of russian goals. as chairman of the hell helsinki commission and former vice

president of the o.s.c. assembly, i am encouraged to see the active and wide ranging engagement of the osce to foster peace and security in ukraine. the osce has the tools to address concerns with regard to security on the grounds in crimea. minority rights and with regard to preparation for this democratic transition to lead to free and fair elections. in response to their quest by the ukrainian government, 18osce participating states, including the united states, are sending 35 unarmed military personnel to ukraine. this is taking place under the vienna document which allows for voluntary hosting of businesses to spell concerns about unusual military activities. various osce institutions are activated at the request of the ukrainian government including

the osce's human rights office known as the odear to provide human rights monitoring as well as election observations of the may 25 presidential elections. the osce high commissioner on national minorities representative on freedom of the media and the head of the strategic police matters unit, among others, are all in kiev this week conducting fact-finding missions. a full-scale long-term osce monitoring mission is being proposed, and this mission needs to go forward. all of these osce efforts are aimed at deescalating tension, fostering peace and stability and ensuring that observations of osce principles, including the human dimensions, helping ukraine in its transition especially in the run-up to the may elections. these osce on the ground efforts are being thwarted by russian-controlled newly installed crimean authorities. the osce unusual military

activities everybodyer has been stopped by entering crimea by an unidentified man in military fatigues. also the osce media freedom representative and her staff were temporarily blocked from leaving a hotel in crimea where she was meeting with journalists and civil society activists. the u.n. special envoy was accosted by unidentified gunmen after visiting the naval headquarters. they are clearly trying to seek peaceful resolutions to the conflict, is completely unacceptable and we should hold russia responsible for the safety. madam president, russia is a member of the osce, one of the founding members of the osce. and they're openly violating the core principles of the helsinki final act. russia signed on to the institutions that are available

under osce. for this exact type of circumstance, to give independent observation as to what's happening on the ground. sending this mission at the request of the host country into the crimea is exactly the commitments made to reduce tensions in osce states, and russia is blocking the use of that mechanism. the united states and the international community are deploying wide-ranging resources to contain and roll back russia's aggression and to assist ukraine's transition to a democratic, secure and prosperous country in both executive and the congress are working around the clock on this. president obama has taken concrete action and made concrete recommendations. as the author of the magnitsky act i welcome the white house sanctions announced today including visa restrictions on

officials and individuals threatening ukraine sofrpbts and financial sanctions against those responsible for activities undermining the democratic process for institutions in ukraine. madam president, it was just a political while ago that we passed the magnitsky act. we did that in response to gross human rights violations within russia against individual named sergai magnitsky. what we did is said that those who were responsible for these gross violations of internationally recognized rules should be held accountable, and if they're not held accountable, the least we could do in the united states is not give them safe haven in our country. not allow the corrupt dollars that they've earned to be housed here in america. no visas, no use of our banking system. the president is taking a similar action against those responsible for the invasion and

military use against international rules in ukraine. these steps are in addition to many other actions, including suspension of bilateral discussions with russia on trade and investment, stopping u.s.-russia military to military engagements, suspending preparations to the june g-8 summit in sochi. both chambers are working expeditiously on legislation to help ukraine in this delicate period of transition. we also need to work expeditiously with our european friends and allies and i am encouraged by the news that e.u. is preparing a $15 billion aid package. ukraine has exercised amazing restraint and not escalating the conflict, particularly in crimea. i applaud the restraint and their action. the people of ukraine have suffered incredible difficult history and over the last century they have been subjected to two world wars, 70 years of

soviet domination, including stalin's genocidal famine. they certainly don't need another senseless war. nothing justifies russia's aggression. nothing. our political and economic assistance at this time would be a testament to those who died just two weeks ago and a concrete manifestation that our words mean something and that we do indeed stand by the people of ukraine as they make their historic choice for freedom, democracy and a better life. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i come to the floor once again to talk about good jobs, about

manufacturing jobs and about what we can do together in this chamber to strengthen the vital manufacturing sector of the american economy. last year democratic senator sherrod brown and republican senator roy blunt came together in a bipartisan effort to cosponsor an important bill, s. 1468, the revitalize american manufacturing and innovation act of 2013, an effort to build a national network for manufacturing and innovation, also known as manufacturing innovation hubs. this bill, if enacted, would allow us to build institutes across our country dedicated to discovering the next breakthroughs in technology and translating them to the next breakthroughs in manufacturing. i've been proud to support and fight for this bill. and now because of my colleague's leadership and determination we are close to getting a vote. we've heard about the importance of these innovation hubs for manufacturing before. last year two hubs opened, one in youngstown, north and another

in raleigh, north carolina. last week i was thrilled to hear about two more opening, one in detroit and another in chicago. these hubs are good first steps but they are being done by the executive branch without express and explicit authorization for a whole and broader program through this bill, which would extend this national network, would make its life longer and greater and give more specific details to the process by which they would be authorized going forward. so it is my hope that having already seen several demonstrations on a more modest scale that this congress will come together in a bipartisan way and enact this legislation to put a framework in place for the long term. these hubs, as i said, are good first steps, but we in congress can and should do more. in my home state of delaware, we're blessed to have some remarkable institutions of higher learning. delaware state university, led by the great president dr. harry williams. the university of delaware, both research institutions which benefit from federally funded

research and both of which do work in energy and engineering relevant to manufacturing. we also have dell tech, delaware technical and community college which does great workforce training and partners with manufacturers. we have a whole series of manufacturers large and small, companies like dupont, some unknown outside my state that employ dozens or hundreds. what a manufacturing state would do is bring together a university that is doing cutting edge research in a new field, with companies looking to start up manufacturing using that technology with those community colleges and others who would train the new workforce and create a network that would do the innovative work in an iterative way that would abg s*el rate new manufacturing -- accelerate new manufacturing opportunities. the reason this bill has such a diverse group of bipartisan backers to democrats like

sherrod brown and republicans is because these hubs represent a great example of how the federal government can create hubs in a hands off way. these first hubs i mentioned, in these instances the federal government is getting terrific leverage. there is a moore than one to one match from private states and local partnerships in existing hubs, partnerships i might add that have national reach, giving the hubs the potential to benefit not just their immediate regions or their immediate communities but the whom country. general dynamics and honey well are two of the partner companies in the youngstown, ohio, lab and researchers from other universities like arizona state and florida state are collaborators as well contributing their knowledge to the great work of these hubs and bringing back to their labs and their communities what is being learned through this common collaborative work. the kwrupbgs town and raleigh hups now -- hubs are about more

than those two cities. the hubs we would create, we would authorize through this bill would be about more than just the cities or states in which they're based. by bringing together such a wide ranging and diverse set of partners, hubs allow many different stakeholders to pool their resources, minimizing risks of investment in the early stage research that is critical to innovation but not feasible for one company alone to invest in. it is about the private sector coming together with the university and public sector to solve tough problems, without just one firm bearing all the risk or the burden. r&d, research and development, as we know, is critical to our economic future, and these hubs offer an innovative model for increasing our national capacity for invention. the federal government acts as a convener for private firms, nonprofits, universities and researchers, creating an environment where they can all do what they do best and share it. this idea transcends ideology or party. it's why i think members of both

parties should feel comfortable getting behind this bill. it's been endorsed by folks ranging from the national association of manufacturers to the bio which represents the bio and pharmaceutical community. from folks in the private sector and public sector in my own state and in states across the country. madam president, manufacturing, as you well know, is at the heart of what can and should make this country competitive and prosperous in this century. at the end of the day, this is about creating good jobs. manufacturing jobs are high-quality jobs, and it has a significant secondary benefit in the community as well as having higher wages and benefits than jobs in any other sector. if we're looking for the key to a dynamic innovation economy, we need look no further than manufacturers. they invest more in r&d than any other private sector within the country. when we think of manufacturing and innovation today, we often picture researchers in the u.s. inventing things and manufacturing factories overseas, but that's not how sophisticated, advanced manufacturing and innovation work anymore.

the reality is that innovation isn't just linear. r&d and manufacturing need to be closer together. it doesn't just start in the lab and then get sent to a factory and then to a store and your home. more often, r&d results in innovation that is improve the products already in our home, that improve the manufacturing process, that discover better ways to make things faster, more safely and efficiently and that that innovative cycle can speed up the more closely connected and articulated it is. by creating these manufacturing and innovation hubs, all of which focus on a specific sector or industry, we can help fuel the discoveries that will make manufacturing a critical part of our long-term economic future while ensuring that the discoveries that change our world are made here in america and the products that come out of them are manufactured here in america. these hubs focus on emerging areas where there is enormous potential. for example, the hub in youngstown, ohio, is focused on 3-d printing which already has the potential to transform how

manufacturing large scale and small scale is done, not just in the united states but around the world. we believe, i certainly believe we should continue to be at the cutting edge of developing and deploying what 3-d printing has to offer. raleigh, north carolina, has energy-efficient electronics and will likely dominate much of the next generation of electronics. again, why would we not want to be on the ground floor, not just at inventing new technologies but of demonstrating how to manufacture them? in detroit, researchers and businesses and universities and other stakeholders in this newest hub will work together on advanced lightweight materials, on remarkable metals that are stronger, more durable, more duck tile and more -- more ductile and more lightweight than other materials. with applications of course on automobiles and across a very wide range of products and platforms. last in chicago, small businesses, universities and larger companies are working together on some remarkable advance that is speed up the whole manufacturing process, so

new ideas can go from the lab to your home faster than ever before. madam president, hubs like this are central to our competitors because it's not just about the work happening at the lab or the institute itself. it's about how they then attract companies with a national reach to an area that is capable of building sustainable and dynamic local economies. it's about bringing researchers and manufacturers together to spur innovation, commercialize r&d and create good jobs that don't go somewhere else. it's about the larger impact for our communities and our country as innovation breeds new supply chains and new businesses locally and across our country. today's global economy is more competitive than it's ever been. we're competing not just with developing countries that have lower labor and environmental standards or lower wages, but also with developed nations who are trying to outeducate, outresearch and outinnovate us. germany, for example, has a well-developed, well-established, well-deployed

network of more than 60 manufacturing innovation hubs exactly like the ones i have just described. it also has i will remark fairly high labor and environmental standards but is the manufacturing powerhouse of europe. it has nearly double the percentage of its g.d.p. and manufacturing as the united states. how are they able to do this? how do they sustain these high levels of manufacturing? it's in no small part because of the manufacturing and innovation hubs that they have developed and deployed. so let's get this done. there is absolutely no reason that the season of governing and of legislating here in washington needs to be over, especially when there is so much important work to do, work that i know we can and should get done on a bipartisan basis. senators brown and blunt have done great work and shown strong leadership in developing this year, refining this bill and getting it to this point. let's show that we can come together on areas where we do agree and put campaigns and politics aside for now and put american jobs and american innovation first. with that, madam president,

thank you. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: